Aims. Biofilm infections are among the most challenging complications in orthopaedics, as bacteria within the biofilms are protected from the host immune system and many antibiotics. Halicin exhibits broad-spectrum activity against many planktonic bacteria, and previous studies have demonstrated that halicin is also effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms grown on polystyrene or polypropylene substrates. However, the effectiveness of many antibiotics can be substantially altered depending on which orthopaedically relevant substrates the biofilms grow. This study, therefore, evaluated the activity of halicin against less mature and more mature S. aureus biofilms grown on titanium alloy, cobalt-chrome, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), devitalized muscle, or devitalized bone. Methods. S. aureus-Xen36 biofilms were grown on the various substrates for 24 hours or seven days. Biofilms were incubated with various concentrations of halicin or vancomycin and then allowed to recover without antibiotics. Minimal biofilm eradication concentrations (MBECs) were defined by CFU counting and resazurin reduction assays, and were compared with the planktonic minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs). Results. Halicin continued to exert significantly (p < 0.01) more antibacterial activity against biofilms grown on all tested orthopaedically relevant substrates than vancomycin, an antibiotic known to be affected by biofilm maturity. For example, halicin MBECs against both less mature and more mature biofilms were ten-fold to 40-fold higher than its MIC. In contrast, vancomycin MBECs against the less mature biofilms were 50-fold to 200-fold higher than its MIC, and 100-fold to 400-fold higher against the more mature biofilms. Conclusion. Halicin is a promising antibiotic that should be tested in animal models of orthopaedic infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(3):101–109

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims. Septic arthritis of the hip often leads to irreversible osteoarthritis (OA) and the requirement for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to report the mid-term risk of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic revision, and reoperation in patients with a past history of septic arthritis who underwent THA, compared with a control group of patients who underwent THA for OA. Methods. We retrospectively identified 256 THAs in 244 patients following septic arthritis of the native hip, which were undertaken between 1969 and 2016 at a single institution. Each case was matched 1:1, based on age, sex, BMI, and year of surgery, to a primary THA performed for OA. The mean age and BMI were 58 years (35 to 84) and 31 kg/m. 2. (18 to 48), respectively, and 100 (39%) were female. The mean follow-up was 11 years (2 to 39). Results. The ten-year survival free of any infection was 91% and 99% in the septic arthritis and OA groups, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) = 13; p < 0.001). The survival free of PJI at ten years was 93% and 99% in the septic arthritis and OA groups, respectively (HR = 10; p = 0.002). There was a significantly higher rate of any infection at ten years when THA was undertaken within five years of the diagnosis of septic arthritis compared with those in whom THA was undertaken > five years after this diagnosis was made (14% vs 5%, respectively; HR = 3.1; p = 0.009), but there was no significant difference in ten-year survival free of aseptic revision (HR = 1.14; p = 0.485). The mean Harris Hip Scores at two and five years postoperatively were significantly lower in the septic arthritis group compared with the OA group (p = 0.001 for both). Conclusion. There was a ten-fold increased risk of PJI in patients with a history of septic arthritis who underwent THA compared with those who underwent THA for OA with a ten-year cumulative incidence of 7%. The risk of any infection had a strong downward trend as the time interval between the diagnosis of septic arthritis and THA increased, highlighted by a 3.1-fold higher risk when THAs were performed within five years of the diagnosis being made. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):227–234

Aims. The Vantage Total Ankle System is a fourth-generation low-profile fixed-bearing implant that has been available since 2016. We aimed to describe our early experience with this implant. Methods. This is a single-centre retrospective review of patients who underwent primary total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) with a Vantage implant between November 2017 and February 2020, with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. Four surgeons contributed patients. The primary outcome was reoperation and revision rate of the Vantage implant at two years. Secondary outcomes included radiological alignment, peri-implant complications, and pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes. Results. There were 168 patients (171 ankles) included with a mean follow-up of 2.81 years (2 to 4.6) and mean age of 63.0 years (SD 9.4). Of the ten ankles with implant failure (5.8%), six had loosening of the tibial component. In the remaining four failed implants, one was due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), one was due to loosening of the talar component, and two were due to loosening of both the tibial and talar components. Seven patients underwent reoperation: irrigation and debridement for superficial infection (n = 4); bone grafting for cysts (n = 2); and open reduction internal fixation (n = 1). Asymptomatic peri-implant lucency/subsidence occurred in 20.1% of ankles, with the majority involving the tibial component (n = 25). There were statistically significant improvements in PROMs in all domains. Conclusion. Short-term results of this implant demonstrate early survival comparable to the reported survivorship of similar low-profile, non-stemmed implants. Radiological lucency occurred more commonly at the tibial component, and revisions occurred primarily due to loosening of the tibial component. Further research is needed to evaluate longer-term survivorship. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1099–1107

Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Aims. The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is the only mechanical connection between the axial skeleton and lower limbs. Following iliosacral resection, there is debate on whether reconstruction of the joint is necessary. There is a paucity of data comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing reconstruction and those who are not formally reconstructed. Methods. A total of 60 patients (25 females, 35 males; mean age 39 years (SD 18)) undergoing iliosacral resection were reviewed. Most resections were performed for primary malignant tumours (n = 54; 90%). The mean follow-up for surviving patients was nine years (2 to 19). Results. Overall, 27 patients (45%) were reconstructed, while 33 (55%) had no formal reconstruction. There was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (p = 1.000) or radiotherapy (p = 0.292) between the groups. Patients with no reconstruction had a mean larger tumour (11 cm (SD 5) vs 8 cm (SD 4); p = 0.014), mean shorter operating times (664 mins (SD 195) vs 1,324 mins (SD 381); p = 0.012), and required fewer blood units (8 (SD 7) vs 14 (SD 11); p = 0.012). Patients undergoing a reconstruction were more likely to have a deep infection (48% vs 12%; p = 0.003). Nine reconstructed patients had a hardware failure, with five requiring revision. Postoperatively 55 (92%) patients were ambulatory, with no difference in the proportion of ambulatory patients (89% vs 94%; p = 0.649) or mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (59% vs 65%; p = 0.349) score between patients who did or did not have a reconstruction. The ten-year disease-specific survival was 69%, with no difference between patients who were reconstructed and those who were not (78% vs 45%; p = 0.316). There was no difference in the rate of metastasis between the two groups (hazard ratio (HR) 2.78; p = 0.102). Conclusion. Our results demonstrate that SIJ reconstruction is associated with longer operating times, greater need for blood transfusion, and more postoperative infections, without any improvement in functional outcomes when compared to patients who did not have formal SIJ reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):93–98

Aims. Contemporary outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners in patients with inflammatory arthritis have not been well studied. This study examined the implant survivorship, complications, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of THA in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Methods. We identified 418 hips (350 patients) with a primary diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis who underwent primary THA with HXLPE liners from January 2000 to December 2017. Of these hips, 68% had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 286), 13% ankylosing spondylitis (n = 53), 7% juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (n = 29), 6% psoriatic arthritis (n = 24), 5% systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 23), and 1% scleroderma (n = 3). Mean age was 58 years (SD 14.8), 66.3% were female (n = 277), and mean BMI was 29 kg/m. 2. (SD 7). Uncemented femoral components were used in 77% of cases (n = 320). Uncemented acetabular components were used in all patients. Competing risk analysis was used accounting for death. Mean follow-up was 4.5 years (2 to 18). Results. The ten-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 3%, and was highest in psoriatic arthritis patients (16%). The most common indications for the 15 revisions were dislocations (n = 8) and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI; n = 4, all on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)). The ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 6.1%, with the most common indications being wound infections (six cases, four on DMARDs) and postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures (two cases, both uncemented femoral components). The ten-year cumulative incidence of complications not requiring reoperation was 13.1%, with the most common being intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (15 cases, 14 uncemented femoral components; p = 0.13). Radiological evidence of early femoral component subsidence was observed in six cases (all uncemented). Only one femoral component ultimately developed aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores substantially improved (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Contemporary primary THAs with HXLPE in patients with inflammatory arthritis had excellent survivorship and good functional outcomes regardless of fixation method. Dislocation, PJI, and periprosthetic fracture were the most common complications in this cohort with inflammatory arthritis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):768–774

Aims. Ankle fractures are common injuries and the third most common fragility fracture. In all, 40% of ankle fractures in the frail are open and represent a complex clinical scenario, with morbidity and mortality rates similar to hip fracture patients. They have a higher risk of complications, such as wound infections, malunion, hospital-acquired infections, pressure sores, veno-thromboembolic events, and significant sarcopaenia from prolonged bed rest. Methods. A modified Delphi method was used and a group of experts with a vested interest in best practice were invited from the British Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS), British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), Orthopaedic Trauma Society (OTS), British Association of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons (BAPRAS), British Geriatric Society (BGS), and the British Limb Reconstruction Society (BLRS). Results. In the first stage, there were 36 respondents to the survey, with over 70% stating their unit treats more than 20 such cases per year. There was a 50:50 split regarding if the timing of surgery should be within 36 hours, as per the hip fracture guidelines, or 72 hours, as per the open fracture guidelines. Overall, 75% would attempt primary wound closure and 25% would utilize a local flap. There was no orthopaedic agreement on fixation, and 75% would permit weightbearing immediately. In the second stage, performed at the BLRS meeting, experts discussed the survey results and agreed upon a consensus for the management of open elderly ankle fractures. Conclusion. A mutually agreed consensus from the expert panel was reached to enable the best practice for the management of patients with frailty with an open ankle fracture: 1) all units managing lower limb fragility fractures should do so through a cohorted multidisciplinary pathway. This pathway should follow the standards laid down in the "care of the older or frail orthopaedic trauma patient" British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guideline. These patients have low bone density, and we should recommend full falls and bone health assessment; 2) all open lower limb fragility fractures should be treated in a single stage within 24 hours of injury if possible; 3) all patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb should be considered for mobilisation on the day following surgery; 4) all patients with lower limb open fragility fractures should be considered for tissue sparing, with judicious debridement as a default; 5) all patients with open lower limb fragility fractures should be managed by a consultant plastic surgeon with primary closure wherever possible; and 6) the method of fixation must allow for immediate unrestricted weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):236–242

Aims. Pelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct. Methods. We included 53 cup-cage construct (51 patients) implants used for hip revision procedures for pelvic discontinuity between January 2003 and January 2022 in this retrospective review. Mean age at surgery was 71.8 years (50.0 to 92.0; SD 10.3), 43/53 (81.1%) were female, and mean follow-up was 6.4 years (0.02 to 20.0; SD 4.6). Patients were implanted with a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage (n = 12) or a TMARS cage (n = 40, all Zimmer Biomet). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on preoperative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Results. The five-year all-cause survival for cup-cage reconstruction was 73.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4 to 85.4), while the ten- and 15-year survival was 63.7% (95% CI 46.8 to 80.6). Survival due to aseptic loosening was 93.4% (95% CI 86.2 to 100.0) at five, ten, and 15 years. The rate of revision for aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation was 3/53 (5.7%), 7/53 (13.2%), and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. The mean leg length discrepancy improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 18.2 mm (0 to 80; SD 15.8) to 7.0 mm (0 to 35; SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. The horizontal and vertical hip centres improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 9.2 cm (5.6 to 17.5; SD 2.3) to 10.1 cm (6.2 to 13.4; SD 2.1) and 9.3 cm (4.7 to 15.8; SD 2.5) to 8.0 cm (3.7 to 12.3; SD 1.7), respectively. Conclusion. Cup-cage reconstruction provides acceptable outcomes in the management of pelvic discontinuity. One in four constructs undergo revision within five years, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):66–73

Aims. There are limited long-term studies reporting on outcomes of the Zimmer Modular Revision (ZMR) stem, and concerns remain regarding failure. Our primary aim was to determine long-term survival free from all-cause revision and stem-related failure for this modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Secondary aims included evaluating radiological and functional outcomes. Methods. We retrospectively identified all patients in our institutional database who underwent revision THA using the ZMR system from January 2000 to December 2007. We included 106 patients (108 hips) with a mean follow-up of 14.5 years (2.3 to 22.3). Mean patient age was 69.2 years (37.0 to 89.4), and 51.9% were female (n = 55). Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (73.1%), infection (16.7%), fracture (9.3%), and stem fracture (0.9%). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the all-cause and stem-related failure revision-free survival. At most recent follow-up, Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected, and radiological stem stability was determined using the Engh classification. Results. A total of 17 hips (15.7%) underwent re-revision of any component. Indications for re-revision were stem failure (35.3%; n = 6), infection (29.4%; n = 5), instability (29.4%; n = 5), and acetabular aseptic loosening (5.9%; n = 1). The five- and 15-year all-cause survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 92.7) and 83.3% (95% CI 79.6 to 87.0), respectively. There were six re-revisions (5.6%) for stem failure; five for stem fracture and one for aseptic loosening. The five- and 15-year survival free from stem-related failure was 97.2% (95% CI 95.6 to 98.8) and 94.0% (95% CI 91.6 to 96.4), respectively. At final follow-up, the mean OHS was 36.9 (8.0 to 48.0) and 95.7% (n = 66) of surviving modular revision stems were well-fixed in available radiographs. Conclusion. Femoral revision with the ZMR offers satisfactory long-term all-cause revision-free survival, good survival free of stem-related failure, and favourable clinical outcomes. Stem fracture was the most common reason for stem-related failure and occurred both early and late. This highlights the importance of both early and long-term surveillance for stem-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):112–117

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between additional rehabilitation at the weekend, and in-hospital mortality and complications in patients with hip fracture who underwent surgery. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Japan using a nationwide multicentre database from April 2010 to March 2018, including 572,181 patients who had received hip fracture surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who received additional weekend rehabilitation at the weekend in addition to rehabilitation on weekdays after the surgery (plus-weekends group), as well as those who did not receive additional rehabilitation at the weekend but did receive weekday rehabilitation (weekdays-only group). After the propensity score matching of 259,168 cases, in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome and systemic and surgical complications as the secondary outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. The plus-weekends group was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with the weekdays-only group (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 0.92; p < 0.001). Systemic complications such as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis were significantly lower in the plus-weekends group, whereas urinary tract infection (UTI) and surgical complications such as surgical site infection and haematoma were significantly higher in the plus-weekends group. Conclusion. Additional weekend rehabilitation was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality, as well as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis, but was also significantly associated with a higher risk of UTI and surgical complications. This result can facilitate the effective use of the limited rehabilitation resources at the weekend and improve the clinical awareness of specific complications. To establish more robust causal associations between additional rehabilitation over the weekend and clinical outcomes, further prospective studies or randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):872–879

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

The February 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Posterior malleolus fractures: what about medium-sized fragments?; Acute or delayed total hip arthroplasty after acetabular fracture fixation?; Intrawound antibiotics reduce the risk of deep infections in fracture fixation; Does the VANCO trial represent real world patients?; Can a restrictive transfusion protocol be effective beyond initial resuscitation?; What risk factors result in avascular necrosis of the talus?; Pre-existing anxiety and mood disorders have a role to play in complex regional pain syndrome; Three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures at ten years

The February 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: If you use a surgical helmet, you should seal your gown-glove interface; The use of iodophor-impregnated drapes in patients with iodine-related allergies: a case series and review of the literature; Location of the ovaries in children and efficacy of gonadal shielding in hip and pelvis radiography; Prehospital tranexamic acid administration does not improve outcomes in severe trauma patients; Silver-coated distal femur megaprosthesis in chronic infections with severe bone loss: a multicentre case series

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients

The June 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants

The December 2022 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis protocol on a Level 1 trauma centre patient database; Non-specific spondylodiscitis: a new perspective for surgical treatment; Disc degeneration could be recovered after chemonucleolysis; Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy- anterior cervical discectomy and fusion “hybrid” procedures: how does the alignment look?; Rivaroxaban or enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Surgical site infection: when do we have to remove the implants?; Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle placement; Do you need to operate on unstable spine fractures in the elderly: outcomes and mortality; Degeneration to deformity: when does the patient need both?

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

The February 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Clinical and epidemiological features of scaphoid fracture nonunion; Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh); Characterization of genetic risk of end-stage knee osteoarthritis treated with total knee arthroplasty; Platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injection for plantar fasciitis; Volume and outcomes of joint arthroplasty; The hazards of absolute belief in the p-value laid bare